I’m too busy to offer any commentary on late campaign polling, so it’s just as well that these numbers speak for themselves. The personal ratings are similarly devastating for Labor: 29% approval and 62% disapproval for Lara Giddings, 53% and 36% for Will Hodgman, and 27% and 64% for Greens leader Nick McKim. On preferred premier, 53% for Hodgman, 22% for Giddings and 14% for McKim. The poll also foreshadows a disappointing result for Clive Palmer, with the Palmer United Party recording only 4%.
Yikes.
There now seems to be a drift away from the Coalition in every state, at state and federal level, as a result (one must assume) of Abbott’s unpopularity, EXCEPT in Tasmania. I assume this is because Labor has been in for SO long and their record has been SO mediocre for so long that nothing will persuade the voters to give them another gallop.
I blame Bartlett for this. He swore before the last election he would not go into coalition with the Greens, then after the election he immediately did just that. Now no-one believes anything Labor says. He should have stuck to his pledge and gone into opposition then, leaving Hodgman to form a minority government.
@Psephos 1
I’d say that’s a fair assessment of the situation. The question for the term ahead is basically “how fast will Hodgman’s mob screw it up and burn all their political capital with the Tasmanian people?”
Labor might be back in after a single term, if the record of Newman in QLD is anything to go by (he was elected on similarly embarrassing figures for Labor, after all)… but not with Giddings as leader.
It’s also worth noting that Hodgman’s approval % is /exactly/ the same as his party’s primary vote (suggesting it’s the same 53% in both cases), but both Giddings and McKim record approval ratings four points north of their parties’ primary votes.
Clearly, some Green and ALP voters don’t mind each others’ leaders, but they stand pretty much united in their lack of approval for Hodgman.
Giddings’ and McKim’s ratings are the worst for a Premier and a Greens Leader in Newspoll history (though the first is not the worst in Tasmanian history – Harry Holgate got a -59). Hodgman’s are almost exactly the same last time; his disapproval is down a point.
Initial notes here while I await the seat breakdown: http://kevinbonham.blogspot.com.au/2014/03/newspoll-its-all-over.html
The best outcome for Labor if they can’t manage to save two in Franklin is Giddings loses her seat to O’Byrne.
Re #1 had the Liberals stuck by their refusal to deal with the Greens, the Governor would have just put Bartlett back until some time as the other parties dumped him on the floor. Maybe that would actually have been the superior course. Anyway, the rest of Labor did not have to let him do what he did.
I’ve taken PUP’s seat from them in my forecast and changed it for now to 14-7-4. Could even be 15-6-4 on this poll.
Nick Mckim’s approval rating is worse than the figure suggests ( in relation to Green party support ). The figure has been chopped in half compared to the 2010 pre election Newspoll. I believe he was the most popular leader going into that election of the three party leaders.
This is a bit of a surprise to me; he presents himself as a moderate, and is amicable.
It appears as if a wave of unreasonable hysteria has swept up the minds of the people. A reminiscent mood perhaps of the Gillard era, where manipulation and hound dog tactics by the opposition were significant factors in bringing down that government. Plus a terrible media bias that displayed little interest in challenging false assumptions. A psychological brainwashing that is perhaps easier for Tasmanians to succumb to?
Considering that Tasmania’s electoral system requires a political party to achieve close to a majority of the popular vote, and Mr Hodgman has promised the earth to all, including applying magic to resurrect yesterday’s forestry industry, it is close to certain in my view he has a maximum of 4 years in the limelight.
A very bad poll for the opposition and I hope the Greens will get more than the 16 points indicated.
Yes McKim was 58-32 (+26) going into the last election, which was the best ever netsat for a Greens leader!
The history of Newspoll in Tas state elections is that the Greens will more likely do slightly worse than their figures (which if true could see them reduced to three). But we’ll see.
Off to see if I can find the print edition!
Psephos. You are unfair to Bartlett. Once the Green came our and said publicly that they wouldn’t back a change of Govt (ostensibly because of the administrative cost, but radially because the Libs offered them nothing: Hodgman was not allowed by Abetz even to talk to McKim), the Governor could not have realistically installed Hodgman as minority Premier. Bartlett then decided to make the best of a bad job and enter into a coalition which he and his party knew would seal their fate in 4 years time. But they were surely due a spell in Opposition whatever they did.
We could look back on 2010 and say that Labor might have done better in the long run both Federally and in Tassie by not trying to form government. It might have worked Federally, but 15 out of 25 votes for the left side of politics in Tassie, plus a Liberal Party brains trust determined to stay in opposition than deal with the Greens (even if, as was clearly the case, Hodgman thought otherwise).
In 2014, despite being certain to win, the Libs have chosen to make a large number of very specific, but undeliverable and unaffordable promises during the campaign on things like education and health. These are all going to come back and bite them in the bum big time.
C’est la vie in mainstream Australian politics in the 21st century. All marketing and spin: who cares about the actual outcome on the ground? And then Laborites wonder why so many educated, intelligent people have shifted their allegiance to the Greens?
Updated comments, projections and so on.
http://kevinbonham.blogspot.com.au/2014/03/newspoll-its-all-over.html
The Newspoll has caused me to switch from 14-6-4-1 to 14-7-4. I don’t write Palmer off but the 4% result suggests they’ve jumped at least ten sharks too many this campaign. They’ve been a mess and I think even the backblocks of Braddon might be able to see through it.
Me on RN breakfast any moment now
http://www.abc.net.au/radionational/
It’s so unfair to blame to Bartlett here! The blame should lay with the state party for rolling Barrlett and putting in the most mediocre leader in labor/tassie history. Unlike Gillard who did not need a deal with the greens party in 2010 Bartlett had to do a deal.
My Last point is this view that labor should just let in lib/nats government because its the best thing for the labor party just shows had unfit they are for governing this country and state. IT ABOUT THE COUNTRY NOT PARTY.
Good effort with Fran this morning Kevin. I have kept details of your predictions so we can pick on you Sunday if you got it wrong 😉
It doesn’t surprise me at all that PUP seem to have faded off the page.
The election has ultimately boiled down to a two-sided debate, with the Greens and Labor on one side and the Liberals on the other. A decisive part of the electorate – including many people to whom I have spoken – have made the jump to the Libs: not on the basis of a wish so much to “protest” against what has been happening, but out of sheer desperation and fear about what the future might bring to their community. They don’t believe that the Libs have many (or any) of the answers but they think that Labor has had long enough and has failed, so they might as well give the Libs a go. And these sorts of people have a visceral hatred of the Greens.
They have swung hard to the Libs, but without any enthusiasm at all: I have never seen a bunch of voters who are less enthusiastic about what they are about to do. But they seem to feel like a gambler who has lost everything at the races and might as well put the shirt on the back on an outsider in the 8th. Some of them even recognise that the timber and pulp market is stuffed and there’s not much money to be made and that “unlocking” the forests and re-igniting the forest wars is a really bad idea for Tassie in the longer term, but they feel that – when you have nothing left – you might even have to sell off the family jewels.
I can’t really see that Clive – who is trying to attract protest votes – has anything to offer voters in this sort of electoral climate.
Even the Greens are struggling a bit outside their core constituency of true believers. Labor – especially Giddings, Green and O’Byrne – have done quite well at selling themselves as the party of rational use of natural resources. Under McKim – himself a rational use sort of a guy – the Greens, against my expectations, have not been able sufficiently to differentiate themselves as a brand in the campaign.
So, to sum up, I agree with Kevin’s 14-7-4. But, Kevin, is there any chance at all of 15-6-4 (ie, the Libs getting 4 in Braddon)?
After throwing the Newspoll into my aggregate the Libs have chances of 3 in Denison and 4 in Braddon so 15-6-4 or 15-5-4-1 are quite realistic (15-5-5 less so, I think the PUP preferences will be unhelpful to O’Halloran). But the 4 in Braddon is very difficult because if they are polling that high there then someone (most likely Adam Brooks) is going to have an enormous surplus which is going to leak lots to other parties. The key to Braddon is whether Labor can get their vote split evenly enough between Green and Best (or whoever) to keep both ahead as candidates of O’Halloran, Morgan and whoever the fourth Liberal is. If there is an even split in the Labor vote then ignore the party totals, they’ll be rubbish.
A reservation has been raised about the Newspoll as to whether PUP were read out. If not their vote could be underestimated as ReachTEL have been generally getting 6-7 for them. The other possibility is that the PUP vote has finally deflated because they have jumped a few too many sharks in the last week.
It’s an interesting speculation as to what the Governor would have done if both Bartlett and Hodgman had refused to form a minority government after the 2010 election. Party leaders have a duty to assist the Crown in providing a government, but if they refuse, the Crown can’t force them. He could have suggested a Lab-Lib grand coalition, but I expect they would have refused that too. I expect the outcome would have been Bartlett staying in office as a minority government, followed by another election.
My prefered solution to Tasmania’s problem would be a temporary grand coalition to rewrite the state constitution to provide for:
* a 35-member lower house elected from single-member seats
* a 22-member upper house elected by PR for 8-year terms, with 11 members elected at each election
The Greens would in effect be removed from the lower to the upper house, where minor parties belong. (Although I expect they’d have a good chance of winning a lower-house seat in central Hobart.)
@ Meher
“They have swung hard to the Libs, but without any enthusiasm at all: I have never seen a bunch of voters who are less enthusiastic about what they are about to do.”
Without enthusiam, really, look at those numbers again, “without enthusiam”?. They are not blinking, its blue they will vote for, and I think with a fair amount of enthusiasm..and yes, hope. And as they select blue, lts with perspective that the red and green side offer only desolation, they are avoiding those sides out of terror.
Also you post – “but out of sheer desperation and fear about what the future might bring to their community.”
Well, what more is there to say, your words “out of sheer desperation and fear..” Thats where we are and I agree with those words, with great enthusiasm I shall vote blue, the other sides are a cancer.
In there 10’s of thousands they are moving blue, fear? Desperation? What does that tell you?
“Even the Greens are struggling a bit outside their core constituency of true believers. Labor – especially Giddings, Green and O’Byrne – have done quite well at selling themselves as the party of rational use of natural resources. Under McKim – himself a rational use sort of a guy – the Greens, against my expectations, have not been able sufficiently to differentiate themselves as a brand in the campaign.”
Good god, they project such a rational image and yet get slaughtered on the day that counts. There is no such perception, only the hardcore believers think so. The perception is failure, thats why the blue swing is so large. The Greens brand is fairly simple, there is no plan, failure comes a close second.
@ Coast
“It appears as if a wave of unreasonable hysteria has swept up the minds of the people. A reminiscent mood perhaps of the Gillard era, where manipulation and hound dog tactics by the opposition were significant factors in bringing down that government. Plus a terrible media bias that displayed little interest in challenging false assumptions. A psychological brainwashing that is perhaps easier for Tasmanians to succumb to?”
Good grief, we have been brainwashed? In the 10’s of thousands? May I offer you an alternative view.
They are hopeless, a speech writer and a teacher, never produced anything in their lives most likely, but can talk, oh they can talk.
But the people watched what they did and then formed a logical conclusion, they are hopeless, they are all talk, they will get voted out. You have no understanding as to the level of despair in this state. I see it everyday, clients come in, I look at their numbers, we then reduce the hours of their staff..thats always fun.
The BS is thick on this blog.
James, can you please explain to us all what you expect and hope the Liberals are actually going to be able to do in government?
The only faint glimmer of hope I can see (which will only help in the short term and not make a huge difference in the longer term) is that, once Hodgman is elected, Abetz may persuade Abbott to annoint him with vast amounts of Federal funding to subsidise the resurrection of the forestry industry and the expansion back into contentious “high conservation value” areas.
But, with the moribund state of global markets for timber products, the relatively high dollar, and the almost certain poisoning of many markets for Tassie forest products that will follow from a re-opening of the “forest wars”, all I can see this strategy creating is a massive stockpile of logs and woodchips, reminiscent of the good old Federal Government wool stockpile which reached a massive size in the late 1960s and early 1970s.
The obvious thing to do with that stockpile is to burn it to create electricity. But, with the balance between supply and demand in the national electricity market currently shifting towards the supply side, I fear that this won’t prove to be particularly lucrative either. So, in the end, the taxpayer will be underwriting the incineration of beautiful forests(and, despite the claims that have been made by Abbott and Senator Colbeck and others, places like the Florentine and the Weld are quite beautiful in parts, even if parts of them have been logged in the past. I’m no greenie, but I can’t help asking if that really is the best we can hope to do with these beautiful places in 2014: cut them down and burn them up to sell electricity at a loss into an saturated market?
It doesn’t seem quite right to me. But when people are desperate, they are prepared to pawn their family jewels. And, notwithstanding your own enthusiasm, I have found that this is the attitude of most people I talk to who have swung to the Libs. “It’s probably not the right thing to do to go back to clear felling those beautiful forests, and we don’t really want to see those screaming protesters on TV again, but we’re broke and we don’t really have a choice.”
Anyway, I’m glad to know that you’re going to be very happy tomorrow night. I hope it all works out really well for you. And for me: I’d love to see the value of my assets in Tassie go up again. I just don’t think what the Libs are proposing is going to do the trick. Time will tell.
@ Meher
You are a contradiction, you seem flabergasted that people are moving to the blue side. You suggest a lack of enthusiam of those doing so..yet they are doing it, are they not.
You use the word “desperation” yet you ignore the reality of why you are using that particular word, Why do people feel that way? Why are people moving to the blue side?
I dont Meher, I know why they are moving to the blue side, so do you, they are desperate, they see no solution offered by the red and green team, they are Terrified of what 4 more years of these sides will do.
I find it interesting that you query what the blue side will do to improve things, how about the opposite to whatever the others did 🙂
You said it above “we’re broke and we dont really have a choice”, that is called reality. Put all the silly noble words away and get to work fixing things.
I couldnt give a toss about the damn forests, work them or dont, I couldnt give a toss about the protesters, apply the rule of law if required, I couldnt give a toss about the TV scenes, because we are fkin broke and the luxury of time and choices is almost gone.
You know why people are moving to the blue team, would you rather us stay with the sides that are fkin hopeless, cause they speak nice and noble words as people lives are ruined.
To clarify, people are moving to the side they think offer them the most hope and thats not the damn reds or greens. Thats where we are, noble words and ideals are pie in the sky when the issue is food on the table.
The reds and greens cannot fix anything, they are clueless, a speech writer, a teacher and a few union reps, thats great, just fkin great.
Will the blues do any better? I dont know, thats to find out, but heres the thing. THEY CANT DO WORSE and I want to be able to put food on my table rather than live your damn postcard existance of minimum fuss and inconvenience and what do the rest of the world think of us.
Thats why people are voting blue.
Real life, here and now.
Psephos @16
If Tasmania has problems they have nothing to do with our electoral system, which is markedly superior to that used in other jurisdictions. You are suggesting that the system be made less democratic, with the aim of preventing people whose opinions you do not like from being represented. This of course has already been tried once; the geniuses from the two largest parties got their heads together and thought they could eliminate the Greens by reducing the number of seats in parliament, making the quota larger. As a Tasmanian I found this embarrassing, since it was stupid as well as evil. Even if the Green vote had not improved, they were still going to win seats, and therefore occasionally hold the balance of power. At least that plan had the advantage of being cheap and simple to implement. Your suggestion does not have even that going for it; it would be expensive and fiddly as well as being stupid and evil. The Greens would still win seats, though fewer than their support would deserve. They would therefore still sometimes hold the balance of power.
What is more, even if you think Tasmania’s problems are somehow the fault of greens, it is not the fault of the political party. The Greens have of course never been in government to carry out their policies; their nearest approach being their two ministers in the outgoing government. This government has not introduced any radical green policies; the Green ministers have supported the Labor majority and copped flack from some of their supporters for it. If any greens have affected the State’s economy, it has been the more radical protest groups. Their most effective tactic has been lobbying prospective customers for forestry products overseas, with the promise of protests and bad publicity if they buy Tasmanian products sourced from wilderness areas. Personally I doubt whether even this has really had much effect. The high dollar, increasing fuel costs, distance from markets and increasing competition from other countries are enough on their own to explain the decline in the industry. But even if green protesters have done real damage, they have little connection to the political party and are not necessarily Tasmanian or even Australian. Removal of Green political representation would certainly not curtail their activities.
The only path which could offer a future to the local forestry industry is the forestry peace deal struck last year between industry and environment groups, which would give Tasmanian products an environmental certification which would be an advantage in some markets, in return for protecting some areas from logging. This deal is supported by Labor and Green political parties, most of the surviving timber businesses, most environment groups, and the CFMEU, the union covering forest workers. It is opposed by some industry lobbyists, a few radical green protest outfits, and the Liberals, who will tear it up after they win tomorrow. The Liberals will thus prove (again) that they are actually less responsible than the Greens, the only benefit of their action being a slight increase in tourism as young people from the north island come down to enjoy the scenery and a spot of protesting.
I don’t think Labor would have introduced or supported the forestry peace deal had they still had a majority in this term. And some of the industry “support” for it is soft and will evaporate post-election (indeed some has already been peeled off.) But the Libs will have a hard time winding it back, especially when it comes to getting World Heritage revoked. It’s more just about making the right noises to appease the concerns of those who have lost jobs in logging towns and hold Labor and the Greens responsible.
Representative systems have two purposes. One is to allow reasonable representation to all points of view that have a significant following in the community, and the other is to allow the formation of stable governments that can implement the policies on which they were elected. Unfortunately, there is a tension between these two objectives, so an election system has to be devised that accommodates them both as far as possible. My belief, based on 40 years of close observation of Australian and international politics, is that the “Australian system” is, if not the best in the world, certainly among the best. This system is (a) a lower house elected from single-member seats by preferential voting, and (b) an upper house elected by preferential PR. This usually (though not always) produces a stable majority government in the lower house, faced by a strong opposition. Minor parties will occasionally gain representation, though not usually. They can, however, bargain with their preferences to influence major party policies. They will always gain representation in the upper house, and will usually have the balance of power there, which they can use to amend and defeat government legislation (though not block supply). This system is neither evil nor stupid, but one that has worked well for many decades at federal level and in all the states except Qld (which has no upper house, and has suffered bad government as a result), and Tas, which has a PR lower house. This also worked OK until the rise of a permanent third party, which has destabilised the system. That’s not the fault of the Greens as such, but it’s the inevitable result of a three-party parliament in which no two parties can work happily together, as has been exhaustively shown. The solution to that is to return to a system in which the lower house will (usually) have a stable one-party majority government and a one-party opposition, while allowing the third party a say in government from the upper house. My proposal also increases the Parliament from 40 to 57, thus deepening the talent pool somewhat. I expect it would also eliminate most of the current upper house independents, giving both Labor and Liberals bigger party rooms to choose front-benches from. I don’t of course claim this change would solve all Tasmania’s problems. But it would provide an institutional framework which will give Tasmanian politicians a better chance of finding a way to solve them.
I wonder if any ALP Leader will ever be stupid enough to go into Coalition with the Greens again after what’s happened to the Federal ALP and Tasmanian ALP.
The LNP thanks you.
Now the ALP just has to wake up to the fact that the Greens aren’t their political allies – they are direct competitors and need to be preferenced last all the time everywhere.
@Compact
they are joined at the hip.
Kevin @ 22
[I don’t think Labor would have introduced or supported the forestry peace deal had they still had a majority in this term.]
You might be right, but do you not agree that the peace deal was a better idea than “more of the same”?
@26 If the Tasmanian Police and Judiciary had actively enforced the law of the land from the get go it wouldn’t have ended up where it got too.
If (or rather, when) the TFA gets torn up by the new government, I can say only this:
Enjoy the war… and the recession.
Just phone polled again. Only one question “who are you going to vote for?”. Conducted for the ALP.
CC @27
Protests on site in Tasmania have been no more than a slight inconvenience to loggers. The most effective green actions have been carried out outside Tasmania. Arresting more local protestors would only have got Tasmania more bad publicity, and likely caused collateral damage to non-forest exporters.
@28
we are all ready in recession, have been for a while.
By a strange coincidence, I just found an article I wrote about Tasmanian politics in 1990, at the time of the Field government and the struggle for gay law reform.
MagicPudding@26
Maybe but I’m very lukewarm about it because the process that led to its formation was a charade of intellectual fraud and verification sloppiness, meaning that the conservation benefits of the deal are bound to be poorly targeted and exaggerated.
It couldn’t go on the way it was. It was either surrender or play hardball, and Labor would never do the latter, since the government would have gone down.
Psephos: I am inclined to agree with you about the need for electoral reform in Tassie, although I also sympathise with MagicPudding’s disgust at the shameless and clumsy way the major parties have mucked around with the electoral system to try to shut out the Greens.
The Tasmanian system is skewiff, with a single member electorate system in the upper house and a proportional representation system in the lower house. I agree that this should be swapped over, but I think it should be to a 25 seat (or thereabouts) lower house and and similarly-sized upper house.
We would see the end of the current tendency for the Legislative Council to serve as a retirement village for regional mayors, whose continuing dominance in that chamber is (as Greg Barns has pointed out) based upon the curious fact that voting for the seats is not conducted simultaneously but is staggered seat by seat over a multi-year cycle.
If the major parties were more strongly represented in both houses, the parties would have more potential ministers to choose from, which would be a great thing.
And I agree with you that the Australian way is for the people’s house to be based on single member seats. I think both the parliaments that don’t do it this way – Tasmania and the ACT – are diminished by the members not having quite the same connection to specific local communities.
But I also think that such a reform would be very hard to achieve and would be pretty unpopular. The Hare-Clark system has an important place in Tasmanian political culture and the name of Andrew Inglis Clark is revered among the afficionados of Tasmanian political history. It would be difficult for anyone to mess with its basic structure.
As for reforming the Legislative Council, I don’t see how – in the absence of any sort of party discipline in that chamber – you could ever get that chamber to agree to any sort of electoral reform that would affect itself.
Psephos@32
Interesting reading. I did not know Llewellyn (who is running trying to get his old seat back this election) was opposed to reform at that time, though it’s not a great surprise.
Reform was finally passed under the Rundle government in 1997 after barely scraping up the numbers to get through the LegCo.
I think the LegCo has generally done well in this term of parliament by the way, but I still think the archaic LegCo system means they have little if any mandate and that any good outcomes are more luck than management.
As for your version of the single-member-seat lower-house proposal, I don’t know if Tassie needs 57 politicians total and if that really deepens the talent pool or just puts more dills in parliament. The current talent pool issues arise partly from the Greens taking seats away from government and partly from the Hare-Clark recount methods. (In recounts we often get a hack who ran as a ticket-filler, or a defeated ex-MP, but in by-elections for contested seats we’d be more likely to get a good candidate in). But I suspect the exact numbers wouldn’t be your primary concern so long as we did manage to invert the two systems.
KB, what has happened to the Barnards and the Townleys? Are they extinct? Now we have the Hodgmans (Hodgpeople?) and the O’Byrnes.
Psephos@36
Went to school with a Townley (unsure if related) but not aware of any still politically active members of these dynasties.
We also have Groom Jnr and Bacon Jnr in the house at present.
My summary seat assessments (based on all data, not just the Newspoll) :
In order Lib-ALP-Green(-PUP where necessary)
Bass: 3-1-1 very likely. Outside chance 3-2-0. Anything else very unlikely.
Braddon: No clear favourite. Four significant prospects – in declining order of probability, 3-2-0, 3-1-0-1, 3-1-1, 4-1-0. Anything else very unlikely.
Denison: 2-2-1 likely. Realistic chance 3-1-1. Outside chance 2-1-2. Anything else very unlikely.
Franklin: 3-1-1 slightly more likely than 2-2-1. Anything else very unlikely.
Lyons: 3-1-1 very likely. Outside chance 3-2-0. Anything else very unlikely.
[We also have Groom Jnr and Bacon Jnr in the house at present.]
Aren’t there a few Polleys running around in state and federal Labor?
[I blame Bartlett for this. He swore before the last election he would not go into coalition with the Greens, then after the election he immediately did just that. Now no-one believes anything Labor says. He should have stuck to his pledge and gone into opposition then, leaving Hodgman to form a minority government.]
So do I blame Bartlett, but not because of the Greens. It’s because he was such a shit premier. And I also blame Labor for reducing the size of our Parliament just to get rid of the Greens. It’s led to a decline in the quality of government and a quasi parliament composed of senior public servants.
Tomorrow will be a bloodbath for Labor. I just hope we retain enough good Labor people to rebuild over the next four years, preferably without Lara Giddings who, I’m afraid, has run her race. She did pretty well, all things considered, but public opinion is against her, and frankly, Tasmania is rife with gullible and uninformed people.
Michael Polley is retiring at this election. His sister Helen Polley is a Senator.
So the most likely outcome using Kevin’s analysis would be:
LNP 14 – ALP 7 – GRN 4
Best LNP = LNP 16 – ALP 5 – GRN 4
Worst LNP = LNP 13 – ALP 10 – GRN 2 (also best ALP option)
Worst ALP = LNP 15 – ALP 5 – GRN 5
My prediction:
LNP 15
ALP 6
GRN 4
Small addition: Denison 2-1-1-1 can be called a remote chance. Not quite in the “very unlikely” bin.
Yes 14-7-4 is the most likely from summing individual seat outcomes, though the Libs have a pretty good crack at 15-6-4 since they have two shots at it. But the worst outcome for Labor is not 15-5-5 but the highly unlikely 14-5-6.
It’s pretty safe to write off anything that requires two outside chances. 13-10-2 for instance. Labor won’t escape without seat losses. If it saves one of these it will probably suffer elsewhere.
Psephos@41
And Kim Polley, wife of Michael, is Mayor of Northern Midlands.
Indeed, so the correct version should be:
So the most likely outcome using Kevin’s analysis would be:
LNP 14 – ALP 7 – GRN 4
Best LNP = LNP 16 – ALP 5 – GRN 4
Worst LNP = LNP 13 – ALP 10 – GRN 2 (also best ALP option)
Worst ALP = LNP 14 – ALP 5 – GRN 6
My prediction:
LNP 15
ALP 6
GRN 4
http://kevinbonham.blogspot.com.au/2014/01/2014-tasmanian-state-election-candidate.html
My full election and candidate guide, link posted for anyone interested. Some sections dated now campaign is finished.
This has had over 12.5K unique pageviews, with the last three days being its busiest as people decide their votes.
@ james dayton 31
Yeah, and you’re going to stay there for a long time without the TFA, which was the last lifeline for a dying industry (Tasmanian forestry) which has past its time. The encumbrance of a Liberal government with no real jobs plan won’t help either.
Tasmanians need to stop looking to get back the jobs of the past (where the ALP and Liberals firmly live) and start building the jobs of the future (so far, only the Greens are going there with a plan, though some credit must go to the ALP for at least supporting fibre-to-the-premises broadband).
In the immediate future, only excessive Federal largesse can save Tasmanian jobs, but neither that largesse or its effects will be sustained into even the medium term.
@ Arrnea
Yeah, we have actually been here for a while already, oh I am sorry, who is in government?
Apparently the Greens plan is a 20 year transition from substantial welfare state to full welfare state, but yeah, we will make jam and stuff.
If you want to partake of the watermelon Kool aid, then by all means do so, I prefer reality myself.
@ james dayton 48
Thanks for proving that you haven’t actually read any of the Greens’ policy platform and that you merely drink the media Kool-Aid on the issue.
What Labor and the Liberals don’t seem to get is that you can’t have an economy if you destroy the environment trying.
If we hadn’t “destroyed the environment”, some of the greatest cities in the world would never have existed.